Tag Archives: payne

One of the interesting things about the Doe v. Burke II appeal is the Superior Court’s reasoning that, although the complaint was dismissed under the DC anti-SLAPP statute, no attorneys’ fees were warranted because the case was not a “classic” SLAPP. The decision struck me as interesting because numerous movants have argued that their case is a “classic” or “typical” SLAPP. As I explain below, while every movant undoubtedly would like to argue that its case presents a “classic” SLAPP, routinely doing so has the potential to distract the court and could result in legitimate anti-SLAPP motions being denied because the court …

Does a party moving under the DC anti-SLAPP statute need to show that the claim arises from a statement made in connection with an issue of public interest? While the text of the DC anti-SLAPP statute suggests the answer is no, the Vermont Supreme Court, interpreting Vermont’s virtually-identical anti-SLAPP statute, recently held that the answer is yes.

When I wrote about the DC Superior Court’s decision in Payne v. District of Columbia last month, and about the federal court’s decision in Boley v. Atlantic Monthly Group last week, I mentioned how both courts applied California’s standard of review, which was notable because parties in DC have sparred over the applicable standard. Well, those two decisions have not gone unnoticed by the parties in Mann v. National Review, Inc. – one of the high profile cases under the anti-SLAPP statute that is pending in DC Superior Court (see prior posts on the suit here and here).

Last week, another DC Superior Court judge granted an anti-SLAPP motion. This motion was filed by the District of Columbia in response to a defamation/related torts lawsuit brought by a former employee: Eric Payne. (For prior discussions on this suit, see this post discussing the DC opening brief; this post discussing Payne’s opposition brief; and this post discussing DC’s reply brief). You can also find news stories about the lawsuit here and here, and an editorial that is critical of DC’s anti-SLAPP motion here). This is the second anti-SLAPP motion that has been granted by a DC Superior Court judge, …

It has been two years since the District of Columbia’s anti-SLAPP statute first became effective. To date, anti-SLAPP motions have been granted in a Superior Court case (Lehan v. Fox), denied in a Superior Court case (Newmyer v. Huntington), granted in a federal court case (Farah v. Esquire), and denied in two federal court cases (Sherrod v. Breitbart and 3M v. Boulter). Anti-SLAPP motions have also been made in five other Superior Court cases: Snyder v. City Paper (resolved when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit); Dean v. NBC Universal (dismissed as a sanction for the plaintiff’s refusal to pay the …

The District of Columbia has filed its reply brief in support of its anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the defamation suit brought by former employee Eric Payne for statements made by the district’s CFO Natwar M. Gandhi concerning Payne’s termination as contracting director for the Office of the CFO.

At the same time as former DC employee Eric Payne is opposing an anti-SLAPP motion filed by the District of Columbia, another former high-ranking employee of the District of Columbia has also been hit with an anti-SLAPP motion in response to her defamation suit. On November 21, 2012, Jennifer Campbell, the former District of Columbia Chief Operating Officer for the Department of Health Care Finance, filed suit against three companies that she alleged made defamatory statements about her, which she alleges directly led to her termination by the District of Columbia.

Eric Payne, the former contracting director of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, has filed his opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion filed by the District of Columbia and his former boss, Natwar Gandhi. Unlike Dan Snyder and Bradlee Dean, who responded to anti-SLAPP motions by arguing that the SLAPP statute violated the Home Rule (here and here), Payne’s opposition does not attack the statute’s constitutionality. Instead, Payne argues that the statute should not apply because he is not a well-heeled individual aiming to punish a private person, which, he argues, was the purpose of the statute. While Payne’s description …

After a period of relative quiet, there has been a flurry of activity in the District of Columbia federal and state courts in cases involving the DC anti-SLAPP statute. Here’s a summary of where the various cases stand: • Sherrod v. Breitbart: The case drawing the most attention is the pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sherrod v. Breitbart. There, the defendants/appellants have filed their opening brief; the District of Columbia has filed an amicus brief; Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital have filed …

About Us

LeClairRyan’s Media, Internet and E-Commerce Industry team is comprised of veteran attorneys who provide companies and individuals in these industries with legal counsel and representation in the full spectrum of issues they encounter on a daily basis. more...